| Author |
|
Mark Haslett
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 19 April 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 6596
|
| Posted: 21 June 2024 at 5:54pm | IP Logged | 1
|
post reply
|
|
Yes, John, those sonnets haven't even entered the conversation yet.
Not only do they imply in clearest terms that the author is dead, they also state in the author's own words that the author's actual name will not be remembered, though his writing will live on forever.
All evidence lines up cooperatively when we see "Shakespeare" as a pen name.
Nothing lines up when we see "Shakespeare" as the son of an illegal wool merchant from Warwickshire.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Mark Haslett
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 19 April 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 6596
|
| Posted: 21 June 2024 at 5:58pm | IP Logged | 2
|
post reply
|
|
Again, SB -- Please provide any textual analysis of Hall's work to show how all the specific qualities that Hall provides to identify "Labeo" can be properly placed upon Marston.
Your failure to address this at all is telling.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Steven Brake
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 01 January 2016
Posts: 673
|
| Posted: 21 June 2024 at 5:59pm | IP Logged | 3
|
post reply
|
|
JB wrote: We should recall that the dedication of the First Folio refers to Shakespeare as “our ever living poet”. Scholars have searched far and wide without being able to find any use of that phrase (ever living) to describe someone, anyone, who was still alive.The First Folio was published in 1606. Shaksper died in 1616, DeVere in 1604/5. SB replied: The First Folio was published in 1623, seven years after Shakespeare's death and nineteen years afer De Vere's. I've seem the argument about "ever living" made before, and I'm going to do a bit of digging about it. :)
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Steven Brake
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 01 January 2016
Posts: 673
|
| Posted: 21 June 2024 at 6:05pm | IP Logged | 4
|
post reply
|
|
Mark Haslett wrote: That's a "direct quote"?
SB replied: No, but it's a direct line of evidence.
What is this obsession that Alternative Authorship theorists have with Shakespeare having to be named in the same breath as Stratford Upon Avon? Do you demand that references to, say, Ben Jonson, must say in full "Ben Jonson of London, or "Christopher Marlowe of Canterbury"?
I asked before "Can you provide a direct quote from any of Shakespeare's contemporaries in which they directly state that he wasn't the author?".
Can you do so? And, in accordance with your own standards, will it name the author and their birthplace or place of work?
Edited by Steven Brake on 21 June 2024 at 6:08pm
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Mark Haslett
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 19 April 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 6596
|
| Posted: 21 June 2024 at 6:10pm | IP Logged | 5
|
post reply
|
|
Steven, you ask for far more than you are willing to give.
But I already provided you the direct quote from Hall and the context which
determines clearly that Hall says Labeo is Dhakespeare and Labeo uses a
pen name.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Steven Brake
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 01 January 2016
Posts: 673
|
| Posted: 21 June 2024 at 6:16pm | IP Logged | 6
|
post reply
|
|
Mark Haslett wrote: But I already provided you the direct quote from Hall
SB replied: Have you provided a full quote from Joseph Hall from Ashby De La Zouch?
These are your rules - not mine.
Mark Haslett wrote:...and the context which determines clearly that Hall says Labeo is Shakespeare and Labeo uses a pen name.
SB replied: Hall says - not directly, but his meaning is plain - that Labeo is a pseudonym. There is nothing to prove that it's a reference to Shakespeare. It could be Marston, or perhaps even no-one, just a derogatory catch-all term for what Hall viewed as a vulgar tendency in poetry.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Mark Haslett
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 19 April 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 6596
|
| Posted: 21 June 2024 at 7:30pm | IP Logged | 7
|
post reply
|
|
SB replied: Hall says - not directly, but his meaning is plain - that Labeo is a
pseudonym. There is nothing to prove that it's a reference to Shakespeare.
It could be Marston, or perhaps even no-one, just a derogatory catch-all
term for what Hall viewed as a vulgar tendency in poetry.
**
This is false and you should be ashamed to post it.
Hall provides specific and clear distinguishing features of Labeos work.
They do not match Marston.
They do not match anyone but Shakespeare.
Marston refers to Labeo as Shakespeare in his direct response to Hall.
Your response to these verifiable statements which I have provided again
and again, jumping through your hoops, is contemptible.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Steven Brake
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 01 January 2016
Posts: 673
|
| Posted: 21 June 2024 at 7:47pm | IP Logged | 8
|
post reply
|
|
Mark Haslett wrote: Marston refers to Labeo as Shakespeare in his direct response to Hall.
SB wrote: In accordance with your own demands about an author having to be referred to by both name and birthplace:
where does John Marston of Wardington, clearly identified as such, respond to Joseph Hall of Ashby De La Zouch, clearly identifed as such, referring to Laebo as William Shakespeare of Stratford-Upon-Avon - clearly identifying him as such?
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Mark Haslett
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 19 April 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 6596
|
| Posted: 21 June 2024 at 8:01pm | IP Logged | 9
|
post reply
|
|
From contemptible to contemptuous, but never remotely scholarly, curious
or open minded.
You invented this new rule. You are avoiding the main point with distraction.
Is this Steven’s teenage daughter posting on his account?
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Steven Brake
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 01 January 2016
Posts: 673
|
| Posted: 21 June 2024 at 8:16pm | IP Logged | 10
|
post reply
|
|
Mark Haslett wrote: You invented this new rule.
SB replied: At the top of this very page, you've posted "Please provide a direct quote where Francis Meres says Shakespeare is a writer from Stratford".
Go back through this thread and count the number of times you've tried to draw a distinction between "Shakespeare" and Will of Stratford-Upon-Avon, or insist that references to Shakespeare/Shakspere, or whatever variant MUST directly state that he is a writer and/or that he comes from Stratford-Upon-Avon.
You've insisted upon this silly rule.
Do you accept it's silly, counter-productive, and that it ought to be dropped?
If not - please provide quotes from John Marston of Wardington, clearly identified as such, and Joseph Hall of Ashby De La Zouch, clearly identified as such. |
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Mark Haslett
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 19 April 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 6596
|
| Posted: 21 June 2024 at 8:23pm | IP Logged | 11
|
post reply
|
|
I see. This is your new diversion:
What is this obsession that Alternative Authorship theorists have with
Shakespeare having to be named in the same breath as Stratford Upon
Avon? Do you demand that references to, say, Ben Jonson, must say in full
"Ben Jonson of London, or "Christopher Marlowe of Canterbury"?
**
I think what you fail to account for here is that we are talking about how to
determine whether or not Stratford Will wrote the works of Shakespeare.
Naturally, if there was any reference anywhere on the record that
established the Author came from Stratford, the conversation would end. So
what you see as “obsession” is really just a request for evidence of that
sort, like Diana Price was able to find for every other author of the period.
An authorship question of any work would lead eventually to a search for
this kind of evidence. Shakespeare scholars have hunted in vain for
hundreds of years for this kind of evidence. I’m sure such evidence
would interest you… if it existed.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Mark Haslett
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 19 April 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 6596
|
| Posted: 21 June 2024 at 8:28pm | IP Logged | 12
|
post reply
|
|
SB: You've insisted upon this silly rule.
**
No. You took that out of context.
I pointed out that Hall addresses the author behind the works and provides
information we would not otherwise have about the person. He is making
personal statements about the man behind the work.
Meres only addresses the work and makes comments about “Shakespeare”
which in no way indicate that he knows the author or where the author is
from or anything else that can be used to dismiss the idea that Shakespeare
is a pen name.
But I really believe you already knew that.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
